memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Category talk:Bioreplicants
Creation If we have a category for hybrids, then why not clones... * Sim * Elizabeth * Not , but something like it * Stavos Keniclius 5 * Spock Two * Mariposa inhabitants * Wilson Granger * Victor Granger * Elizabeth Vallis * * * * #1 * #2 * Not , but something like it * Yelgrun * Weyoun 4 * Weyoun 5 * Weyoun 6 * Weyoun 7 * Weyoun 8 * Unnamed Vorta * Shinzon --Alan (talk) 00:54, January 10, 2019 (UTC) :Why not replicant O'Brien or ? Also, doppelgänger. - 05:45, January 10, 2019 (UTC) I guess those could be valid "like" things, but are they really clones? Everything I see about the O'Brien replicant and the page about replicants seems to not indicate that that term equaled clone. Other than "There was no way to prove he wasn't you." Which I guess made him better than a clone. Of course, the background information explicitly makes that point more so than the non-information defined about it on screen. The same can be said for Atoz, who was simply called a "replica", and was described as being capable of doing the simpler tasks, but again, nothing as to the matter of the replica's origin. The Picard one, does "Our transporter is able to replicate living matter, including the brain's many trillion dendritic connections where memory is stored." equal clone? Also add to the maybe list: Travis Mayweather (replica). --Alan (talk) 18:29, January 10, 2019 (UTC) :Well, the term is kinda what I'm getting at, in that do we want a category for this very particular definition, a more "general" category for "clones", or even a category at all? A lot of the entries at doppelgänger are "clones" if not actual clones, but I can't come up with a category term or scope that would cover the Rikers, O'Briens, Torres, and Elizabeth. Biological duplicate doesn't cover the last two, clone seems to be out for at least O'Brien if not Torres, and Elisabeth doesn't have a doppelgänger/duplicate/original at all. I'm also not sure if One would be in this as well. - (on an unsecure connection) 21:29, January 10, 2019 (UTC) Well, there is still 21 (counting unnamed people links) pages for folks who were explicitly called clones, which in itself is enough to justify that, just as it did for hybrids or augments. --Alan (talk) 22:14, January 10, 2019 (UTC) :Unnamed people links should never be categorized outside of the unnamed redirect categories, but there are "enough" pages even without them. I'm just wondering if there isn't a better, more inclusive category we should make instead, or if a better version of doppelgänger would cover the subject best. If this has some sort of note like at Category:Augments about the scope, that would at least help non-clone "clones" ending up in this. - (on an unsecure connection) 22:32, January 10, 2019 (UTC) I was thinking about that too. And obviously it would be nice to collect everything together, and I even thought "artificially biological lifeforms", but that doesn't really roll off the tongue, but it would at least include replicants, some doppelgangers, clones and augments. But keep in mind too, by definition, a doppelganger is "non-biologically related look-alike or double of a living person" -- which does rule out clones. As for the other thing about unnamed redirects, I was never implying that the redirects should be categorized, just the Unnamed Vorta pages and Mariposa inhabitants pages listed above would be listed under clones. --Alan (talk) 23:09, January 10, 2019 (UTC) :So the best I could come up with is "biological replica" which fits most of these, but not all. That said, the Webster and Google definitions for "doppelgangers" are usable. Elisabeth would be out, but I think all the others could be in under the looser definition we are already using for the page. Using that term would also place Category:Holographic duplicates and soe of the other stuff on the page. - (on an unsecure connection) 17:37, January 11, 2019 (UTC) It almost makes you want to say bioreplicant. But how does a holographic duplicate count towards biological replica?--Alan (talk) 18:15, January 11, 2019 (UTC) :I'm not opposed to a "bioreplicants" category. A doppelgangers category could have holographic duplicate in it. - (on an unsecure connection) 19:37, January 11, 2019 (UTC) ::What about non-clone doubles, like Geordi La Forge (impostor)? Using a real person's name as an alias, not making something up. --LauraCC (talk) 16:03, January 14, 2019 (UTC) :That's what the doppelgänger page is for, and aliases already have a category. - (on an unsecure connection) 21:51, February 1, 2019 (UTC)